feat: add method to set provider and block during init

[liran2000]

The API SHOULD provide functions to set a provider and wait for the initialize function to return or throw

This PR

implements spec Requirement 1.1.8.

following blocking setProvider PR.

[liran2000]

hi @toddbaert,

on the approach to implement it, I thought it can be good in this case to call initialize on the same caller thread as it needs to wait.

@thomaspoignant for your recent spec addition.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #563 (37345c0) into main (7b1eb1c) will increase coverage by 0.51%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #563      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     94.25%   94.76%   +0.51%     
- Complexity      356      358       +2     
============================================
  Files            32       32              
  Lines           835      841       +6     
  Branches         50       51       +1     
============================================
+ Hits            787      797      +10     
+ Misses           27       24       -3     
+ Partials         21       20       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	94.76% <100.00%> (+0.51%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
.../main/java/dev/openfeature/sdk/OpenFeatureAPI.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...n/java/dev/openfeature/sdk/ProviderRepository.java	98.46% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[toddbaert]

Looks good! Thanks! Interested in @thomaspoignant 's opinion.

My only requested change is this, which is a naming issue mostly (let me know if you disagree). Otherwise just optional suggestions.

[toddbaert]

hi @toddbaert,

on the approach to implement it, I thought it can be good in this case to call initialize on the same caller thread as it needs to wait.

@thomaspoignant for your recent spec addition.

I'm fine with this approach.

[toddbaert]

@liran2000 I've updated the PR title to be more "friendly" since it goes into our release notes.

[toddbaert]

LGTM, left 2 more small nits!

[toddbaert]

@thomaspoignant since you came up with this spec proposal, I'm interested in your opinion of this implementation.

[toddbaert]

I'm going to merge this EOD unless I hear objections.

cc @justinabrahms @thomaspoignant

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
2 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication